The Jefferson Bible

The Jefferson Bible
By Thomas Jefferson

Is Jefferson a deist? Jefferson is a materialist where Christ, the Lord God, is a spiritualist. I use the word lord carefully in that Jesus Christ held a sense of authority with regard to his view on the meaning of God. Can a material thinker be other than one capable of false gods? In Jefferson’s case this work says yes. Can a solely material man of reason transcend to the spirit world? In this question, I am not so sure.

Jefferson literally cuts and pastes the various authors of somewhat allegorical stories, merely because they are transcripts of Christ's words, into a chronological order so he can make practical sense of the word of Christ. The work itself speaks loudly to reason. The work clearly draws a map, laying out the buoys of moral code, suitable for this material world. But does this work buy you heaven on earth? I say yes, but wonder if Jefferson himself purchased the goods. Ironically Judaism is of the Law where as Christianity is of the Way. The former sits on a plethora of reason. The latter sits on a short one hundred fifty pages of Christ's message of transcendence through the forgiveness of sin and the acceptance of all that is; love. Jefferson does not deviate from Christ’s message. But he approached it in a reasonable way. Is there evidence in his work that he is a deist, I say yes. Is there evidence that his work promulgates transcendence the essence of Christ's message?

I was in discussion with a teacher friend of mine in the onset of my reading this book. He remarked; “was Jefferson truly a deist?” Using the Wiki definition as follows:

Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature that he configured when he created all things. God is thus conceived to be wholly transcendent and never immanent. For Deists, human beings can only know God via reason and the observation of nature, but not by revelation or supernatural manifestations (such as miracles) – phenomena which Deists regard with caution if not skepticism.

In conjunction with the observation that Jefferson does not include any mention of the resurrection of Jesus Christ in his work, I conclude that Jefferson is a deist. If one were to only have read Jefferson’s Bible, never having experienced any form of modern day Christianity or Judaism, one would conclude that Jesus Christ is also a deist. When focusing only on his message the reader comes away with the notion that God is a three letter word that headlines the concept of the laws of nature. Judaism uses words in a nominal way to help man conform to these Laws. Christ taught that conformity with nature is found in the Way you live your life. Christ recognized the power of spirit, of which science has not sufficiently focused on. We have yet to complete that research. I always reflect back on the story once told to me on JS Bach. When he finally completed the ‘perfect fugue’ he died. His life was complete. Yet he, his spirit, his music whether written, performed, or heard, lives on in the lives of millions today. It is a law of nature that our biological homes expire. It is in the teachings of Christ that the way in which we live our lives transcend our body temples. If you truly embrace transcendence, then you wholly (w’holy) let loose your fear of death. When you do that your ego’s addiction to the laws of scarcity is over come as time gives way to eternity. I think that is Christ/’s message and Jefferson carried it forward. After all Jefferson/’s accomplishments in life he had to complete this work. His body temple expired not long after its completion. May his body rest in peace and may his spirit live forever.

General observations:

1. Luke, an educated physician, the son of a Greek freedman, stepson of a Roman governor; writes gospels of a pragmatic nature. His story gives the appearance of factual history where the reader can easily derive where the Pharisees would have grievances with Jesus who was openly and somewhat bombastically critical of them.

2. Whereas Matthew and Mark write in a much more spiritual tone, speaking to the Way of spirit, drawing more on allegory as opposed to puzzling parable. My favorite author in the Bible has become James for many reasons.

3. Christianity is not a religion. Catholics, Lutheranism, Baptists. Sunni, Shea, Hinduvita are religions. Christianity is a theology; you could call it a classification of philosophy as far as I am concerned. It was indeed the Judeo-Christian theology that brought the guiding principles to the founding fathers. They were deist of nature but not biased toward any religion or based in any one theology. I did not come to this well articulated view on my own.

4. Jefferson cuts and pastes excerpts from the bible. He pastes in a grouping suggesting a relevancy within the group and therefore a theme. As 'bible thumpers" quote certain versus out of context of the whole to justify current view based on the bible, I call this religion, not Christ's theocracy or deism. Does the fact that Jefferson takes that practice to a higher level by grouping make him still guilty of the same or is his grouping consistent with Christ's theocracy? If you answer the latter you can find evidence within the book that Jefferson uses Christ’s message in pure deist form, belief in one God, the manifestation of the laws of the universe.

5. Going in to this book, fresh off of reading Dear and Glorious Physician by Taylor Caldwell, I reflected back on comments too many folks make on my reviews. 'They are long, where do you find the time?' I thought of all the philosophers I have read on and about. The books were as well long. Jefferson's Bible is short as it includes solely Christ's message. Short and simple.

6. Much of the book is a cut and paste of scripture in complete context of one author or another. It is until page 126, three quarters if the way through the book the reader notices that Jefferson has been weaving Matt and Luke. In that tapestry you find Jefferson's theology endorsing the concept of 'chop wood - carry water’. But it goes a bit further to include n Aynd Rand's words live not for the sake of another man nor live at the sake of another man. You could turn that phrase inside out and say; live for the sake of another man nor live for your own sake. In my mind, it really doesn’t matter in practice if you believe we are all One. I am not so sure Jefferson is on board.

This concept speaks to hoarding of capital and implies through the metaphor the practice of planting seed, to the investment of capital. In my mind investment of capital is much different to spending as a consumer. Copping wood and carrying water with no purpose is just that; going through motions to consume both the wood and the water. He who is solely a consumer violates both sides of Rand’s coined rule no matter how you want to look at it. Man may be chopping wood and carrying water but may also be living an entitled benefactor’s life.

Christ was a deist and a capitalist. He planted seed, his lessons, to thousands. Thru Jefferson’s work in this book he may be entitled the same label. However thru his own criticism of Christ as being naive, I would want to put Jefferson's deeds to the test. Jefferson claims to be a materialist whereas he Criticized Christ for his spiritualism. To make it real simple I would not examine his biography from cradle to grave. I would only look at those days and moments just prior to his passing. In spirit was he ready? This work alone suggests begrudgingly that he was.

7. There is a distinct repetition In Jefferson's cut&paste work. The reader cannot grasp this until three quarters of the way through the book, promulgating the need to go back, and reread, looking for the pattern or logic of the larger context. In this version, Forrest Church failed to mention this in his introduction. I may mirror Jefferson’s work and take fifteen years to reread this book as an exercise in recursive analysis, perhaps to complete my …life.

8. Is it possible for the Son of Man to realize the Kingdom of Heaven? Jesus calls for all men to love one another and at that moment this reality, heaven on earth manifests itself. That is his theology in a nutshell.

9. I am intrigued that right after the passage of Mt 25, disusing the separation or unity of man, depending on whether you are a deist or a religious sort; Jefferson goes straight in to the betrayal of Jesus. Is he (they, Christ and Jefferson) speaking to the duality of man? Is betrayal in the nature of man?

10. Jefferson never mentions the resurrection!!!!!!!! It was not part of Christ’s lessons before the crucifixion. Did Jefferson get tired?


Annotated Bibliography This time worth reading my comments

The following is perhaps the closest I’ll ever come to ‘Bible thumping’ The versus that Jefferson captured, captured my thought as well. You may find your strain of thought entangled with as well. Enjoy.

Page 26: [of Jefferson’s pending accomplishment] "These are now idle projects for me. My business is to beguile the wearisome-ness of declining life, as I endeavor to do, by the delights of classical reading and of mathematical truths, and by the consolations of sound philosophy, equally in different to hope and fear."

My comment: Hope and fear were not in any way harbinger corner stones of Jesus' philosophy, as I have come to know it. Yet hope and fear ring through the halls of too many Christian institutes.

Page 27: [Jefferson writes to Van der Kemp]. It is not to be understood that I am with him in all his doctrines. I am a materialist: He takes the side of Spiritualism. He preaches the efficacy of repentance towards the forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise if good works to redeem it.

My comment: Does this position of Jefferson immediately make is work suspect of the very own criticism of those before him? I reflect immediately on Emerson’s Nominalist essay and note that in this material word where words, symbols, and works of art are the essence of human communication are the bane of not only the recursiveness in religion’s attempt to retell Jesus' words, but also the exact departure of Jefferson's some what cynical views from those of Jesus.

Mk 1:22 And they were astonished at his doctrine; befir he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.

My comment: In my time in Israel I found the common phrase of one who wished to make an inarguable point; ‘it is written'

Mk 2:27. And he said onto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath

Mt 5:1. And he opened his mouth, and taught them saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven

My comment: Given Jefferson's disagreement with Jesus on material -v- spiritual I am surprised this made the final cut. Perhaps in 1820 the poor had not yet evolved to the 2000 common phrase 'desperate people do desperate things'. Perhaps this phrase came to pass when people, in mass, seeing that they can obtain the wealth of his King, became
material minded over his once spiritual reality.


My. 5:34; But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is Gods throne.

My comment: Swear means make an oath to change reality. Change is a component of reality. This is not a command to not change reality as it is, but to accept it including the changing seasons. How senseless it is to think you can change the seasons, nature.

Mt 6:33/34. But seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all things shall be added unto you

Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto this day is the evil thereof.

My comment: Llive in the here and now. If time were measured by the events of change and one were to accept all things as they are then there is no change in one thing; acceptance. Without change on that one thing you have no measure of time; eternity. You are living in heaven for eternity. 'Unconditional acceptance' which is pragmatically a surpurpholous phrase, can be narrowed down to one nominal word: love.

Mk 7:20-23 And he said, that which cometh out of man, that defileth the man. For from within, out if the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornication, murders, Thefts, covetousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these things come from within, and defile the man.

My comment: Tthe world, as it is, is what it is; until the heart of man decides it not to be. That alone does not make him evil, as it is man who sees a chair or a table when he gazes upon in a tree. In Jesus' list are representations in words of that which come from the heart. That observes scarcity not of nature but of mankind, which together with lack of the will to let it be produces evil seed to evil deeds

Mt 18:3-4. And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom.

Whoever, therefore shall humble himself as this little child the same as the kingdom of heaven.

My comment: It is real clear that Christ advocates transcendence to heaven while living on earth. He is making apparent a simple reality. It is what it is here and now and acceptance of this, unconditional love, or humbling yourself as does an innocent child is
the Way. I would speculate that 9 in 10 Christians would say when you die you go to heaven if you are good. I wonder, having not studied the Quran, about the seven virgins. Is that part of the Islamic Theology or is that an interpretation of either the Sunni or Shea derivative religions of Islam.

L 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the others; or he will hold on to one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

My comment: This has a relative bearing to the class warfare that has been stoked for the first time by an American president, Obama. The answer to this rift lay in the previous scripture in Luke 16:11/12 Luke goes on further to say in asynchronous order He that is not faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the
true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's who shall give that which is your own? Stick with me here.

Wealth all alone is not worth a conversation. It's what one does with his money. If one invests money back into the system of capital, then the overall capital of mankind benefits. And this is consistent with the moral code of Jefferson and therefore Jesus Christ. The universe will bestow upon you, as a good steward of wealth, more wealth. If a wealthy person deviates from this principle, by hoarding his money he puts the system at risk and therefore the nature of his own economics is at risk. If he merely spends is money frivolously on lavish living as to many sports superstars and Hollywood celebrities do, he will eventually become once again a poor person. As so many do.

Thus too if poor persons who are not good stewards of wealth are the benefactor of Obama's redistribution of wealth, American society will take a step backwards in terms of our capital base to achieve great things, for himself or God as I define God.. Money will be in the hands of people debased from the moral code of Jefferson and Christ. If he manages his mammon in accord with Luke and therefore the code of Christian theology he will be of God and therefore wealth.

Mt 20:1. For the kingdom of heaven is like unto man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire laborers into his vineyard.

Mt 20:2: And when he had agreed with his laborers for a penny a day he sent them into his vineyard

Mt 20:13/16: But he answered one and said, Friend I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto the last even as I give unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what thy will with mine own? Is thine evil eye because I am good? So the last shall be first and the first last: for many be called and few chosen.

My comment: This draws on the situation with the, silently Obama endorsed, Occupy Wall Street violent protests. We have people in the streets in envy of those they claim to be greedy in their wealth. In Jesus's name let those who abide the law do as they will. In
Jefferson's mind I presume Matt's scripture to mean let thy will be free...not fair. I say to those of envy, those incapable of managing to their own wealth, those incapable of realizing where their wealth lay, let go of that envy for perhaps it is the log in their eye that impedes their ability to See…their own Way to Wealth.

Mt 22:31/32. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, ye have not read that which is spoken unto to you by God, saying; I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, I the God of Jacob? God is not the God if the dead but God of the living.

My comment: (possible conclusion) When you tie this to other scripture where it is written that the Kingdom of God is obtainable on earth, one concludes that Jesus' theology advocates that resurrection practically speaking, references the awakening to God, reality. In answering the question is Jefferson a deist; you may begin with his
work herein, but I find need to look at his life. He is great things. He also had a few misdeeds as well. Did he seek forgiveness and redemption? Was he, for example, able to offer John Adams, unconditional love while conducting there famous debate? Rats that leads me to more books to read. If he does, does that make him a Christian or a deist?

Mt. 23:30/31 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

Wherefore ye be witness unto yourselves, that ye are children of them which killed the prophets.

My comment: In the context of all of Matt 23 one finds evidence that Christ’s is a deist. It is clearly in this theology Christ's disdain for the practices of the Jewish religion. In this specific scripture Christ is advocating the notion of One Man, the spirit that transcends from father to son. This is not to be confused with miracles. At the close of Matt 23 he advocates rather than give in abundance to impress each other; give of your all in the light of One God.

Mt 22:17/21[asked the Pharisees]. Tell us therefore. What thinkith thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, why tempt me ye hypocrites? See me the tribute-money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he sayith unto him who is this image and superscription? They sayith unto
him, Caesar’s. Then sayith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God's.

My comment: Matt is alluding to Jesus' disregard for the person not in men, as truth is not found therein. Truth is not found in the symbolism of man, not in his word or deed. So hence therefore they must be found in his spirit, the spirit of all mankind in it's place in the kingdom of heaven which has been established in the scripture as achievable by the living on earth. It is in the nature of man to love one another, when he sees his brother for who he is, not who he desires him to be.

So here is the test: then if desire were the antipathy of the nature of the spirit of 'one man' then is desire not true? How could desire exist in the nature of man if it Christ's theology it does not? Christ's theology has a dependency that actually challenges man desire to live, not die. It is in our nature to live, thrive, procreate and carry on...in the material world. There appears to be a dependency in Christ's version of truth. If truth has a dependency can it be absolute or in other words complete? Stick with me here.

In Christ what is important is not of this world as we know it. A true Christian accepts death as part of living and in doing so that desire to cheat the laws of scarcity of time evaporates. Without that desire, each man can See his brother in a new light.

Science says energy can only be altered, not destroyed. Many of the founding fathers believed this and it manifested in their notion that when their bodies expired their thoughts shall live on. The CERN project in Geneva Switzerland is on the verge of discovering what they are coining as the 'God matter'. That is what they are calling it the dark matter that existed before the big bang. Is this the nature of God? Is this what Christ new 2012 years ago, but expressed it in terms not of what it is, but rather how to deal with it? Does what it is really matter? If so then his theology espousing the idea that nature and God are one is on the verge of being proven to be the truth. I believe that man's desire to live is too often overshadowed by his desire to love. For without love, why live? Love, the absolute acceptance of what is, naturally, is the meaning of life.

Mt 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharasees, hypocrites! For ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of he'll than yourselves.

My comment: Here in Christ's theology is witness to his condemnation of the Jewish practice, the Jewish religion. Throughout the scripture Christ is on record reciting the Law of the Jews, and in many cases one reads the words, 'you hypocrites.’ Oddly enough it seems Christianity has followed suit of the Jews. Where theology may put the doctrine of One God into words, religion makes many authorities of that One God in their deeds.

Assuming this was true, then Jefferson is not, through his disagreement with Christ, on the notion of One Man in Spirit -v- Jefferson's notion of one man 'in deed', an absolute deist. He apparently waits for the deed to judge. Christ advocates that One Man, including the Church, with all its flaws, can be forgiven, redeemed, and resurrected. But through Jefferson's missing the mark of absolute deism, he does land on what is prevalent, apparently, in most material man; the belief in scarcity of at least time, caused my his fear of death. If one truly believes there is nothing after death, his behavior will respond accordingly. Thus it is his nature that through Christ's theology can only he responded to through, forgiveness, redemption, transcendence which is the kingdom of heaven among the living on earth. In this theology is the meaning of life and death.

Mt 25:31. When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

Mt 25:34 Then shall the King say unto to them on his right hand, Come ye blessed of my Father, inherits the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Mt 25:37/39. Then the righteous answer him saying, Lord when we saw thee an hungered, and fed thee? Or thirst, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took the in? Or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we the sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

Mt 25:40. And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto it unto the least of my bretheren , ye have done unto me

Mt 25:46 and they shall go away into ever lasting punishment: but the righteous into eternal life.

My comment: It seems to me that rather than take Christ for his word Christianity followed suit with the Jews and separated themselves from those that were not righteous. Let's remember the tale of Stephen, also in the scriptures, therefore of Christ's theology. Then look back at Mt 25. Who is the Son of Man? I say if I Christ and we are all brethren then therefore the King being referred to is each of us. When each of us or any of us is capable of the acts of the King as discussed in Mt 25, he finds the Kingdom of Heaven here in earth. Because Christ's theology includes forgiveness, redemption, and transcendence; at any time a person can take no time, an instant, to live in the Present Moment, and find eternal peace through the realization that the foundation of the world, Nature, is already perfect, just as it is. There is no Separation of one from another. There is only some in the light and some yet to come into the light and see it for its simple truth.

Mt 26:16. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger: and he that is chief, as he doth serve.

Mt 26:27. Fir whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? Is it not he that serveth? But I am among you as he that serveth. And the supper ended.

My comment: Jesus clearly says he is both. He is sitting at meat at the Last Supper saying he is their servant, not their King. He is clearly saying there is no separation among men. I say in the context of the whole reading of this book; when we all realize this, the Kingdom of Heaven would be realized on earth. And that is Christ's theology. Unfortunately it is the Church who made Jesus a God, not Jesus or Jefferson.

J 13:13/14. Ye call me Lord and Master; and ye say well for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one smothers feet

My comment: This comes close to refuting any notion that Jefferson, through Christ's work are then both deist. Does Christ imply that because they decided so, he assumes the role of Lord? Or is he simply assuming the assignment so that he can turn it around and say to them you are also each other's Lord and Master. Or are they servants to each other? Jesus's deed was to wash his brother’s feet as a servant, yet his word was he was their Lord. And then says the servant is not greater than the Lord nor the Lord greater than God

J 13:31 Jesus said: A new commandment I give unto to you, That ye shall love one another; as I have loved you, that ye shall also love one another.

Mk 14:70. Then said they all, Art thou the Son of God? And he say said
unto them Ye say that I am.

My comment: Note Jesus’ answer acknowledges it is the high priest saying this, but they are only the words of another man, not his. And while that man was Jewish, Christianity too easily followed to close to suit. It's been 1890 years until Unity doctrine attempts to correct for this mistake.


Related books and Utube links
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRbZCO0aXng:

Eugine Onigen
by Hoffstader

Bhagavad Gita

The Power of Now
Ekart Tolle



An after thought:

I was surfing the internet to recall who Jefferson had his famous debates with. I came across Hamilton as one of his opponents. To those people who choose to spend their time Occupying Walls Street I offer you this bit of information on Alexanfer Hamilton.
Of illegitimate birth and raised in the West Indies, Hamilton was effectively orphaned at about the age of 11. Recognized for his abilities and talent, he came to North America for his education, sponsored by people from his community. He attended King's College (now Columbia University). After the American Revolutionary War, Hamilton was elected to the Continental Congress from New York. He resigned to practice law, and founded the Bank of New York..

Please note that he was not the benefactor of ANY government entitlement. Please let me suggest that you pick up Jefferson’s Bible while you are camping out, and find inspiration to not occupy it but to simply to chop wood and carry water and life for your own sake as it will contribute to the sake of all man kind. Be recognized for your abilities and talents, not for your protest to those who have not YET discovered you.